All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:49
June 4, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, time to get myself in trouble.
Stand by coming up.
Great to have you here, Rushlin Boy, and the EIB Network.
The Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's just, it's sheer fun doing this every day, folks.
I just, I absolutely love it.
It's a thrill and a delight to be with you to have a chance, talk about all this important stuff.
And have you learn from me.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
I'll get myself in trouble here in just a second.
First, a couple of things this Wisconsin business and the attempt here to make it look like people inside Wisconsin don't care for Scott Walker.
Because that's what the story is.
When they have a graphic that says 74% of all of Tom Barrett's money is coming from Wisconsinites or inside Wisconsin, and only 38% of Scott Walker's contributions are coming from inside Wisconsin.
The clear implication is that if it weren't for outside money and outside interest, why, Walker would be history.
These campaign donations are only comparing candidate to candidate.
Now, Walker has been the Republican candidate since the beginning.
Tom Barrett has only been the Democrat candidate since I think March.
And I will bet you, I don't know this off the top of my head, but I just bet you that the contributions to parties rather than candidates tells a very different story.
And I want to reemphasize what our first caller of the day said.
When these rallies for the recall of Scott Walker began, these union people were being bussed in from all over the country, particularly California.
Service employee international union member people and a number of others.
And these rallies were 60,000 people strong.
And they were there were stories about some of the vandalism going on inside the state capitol.
These were some case militant and quasi violent protests.
And they were being conducted by people from out of state.
Now Bill Clinton shows up over the weekend for a rally for Tom Barron.
Barely, not even a thousand people show up.
It should also point out that Scott Walker has raised seven times the money that Barrett has.
Now I um I I it it it's just not possible that Walker has seven times the money that the Democrats have, but that's what they're putting out there.
Walker has seven times the money that Barrett has.
How can that be with the same stat that only 38% of Walker's money is from inside Wisconsin.
It's hard to believe that Walker has seven times the money that the Democrats have.
They're setting up an excuse here for losing.
All this union money?
Now the Tea Party's strong, don't misunderstand, but that's an incredible statistic to put out there.
Now, this information I had, the little story I had about the gay population in this country.
It's actually Gallup polls, and it was reported in the Atlantic, which is a liberal publication.
And the title of the story was Americans have no idea how few gay people there are.
In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, polsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian.
Overall, U.S. adults on average estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian, Gallup found.
Only 4% of those surveyed in 2011, and about 8% of those surveyed in 22 correctly guessed that fewer than 5% of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.
The numbers actually think a 2.8%.
By 2011, The misconception had only grown.
Get this.
More than a third of those surveyed now thought that more than 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian, women and young adults were the most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30% of the population is gay.
And get this.
This is a quote from Stuart Gaffney, who is a spokesman for the group Marriage Equity USA.
My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it's actually a sign of the success of the movement for lesbian gay bisexual transgender rights.
And he's right.
It is.
If the actual gay population is 2.8%, but 25% of the country, or if people think 25 to 30% of the country is gay, it's a massively successful project that they've had.
Well, no, if you...
But if you're going to talk about gay marriage, for example, within the context of equal rights, but you're talking about 2.8, not even 3% of the population.
Do we really want to totally redo?
Cultural standards established from the beginning of humanity for 2% of the population.
No.
For 25 or 30% of the population, well, it becomes a different proposition then.
And of course, this then gets to, well, why do people think that 30% of the population is gay when it's not even 3%?
And the answer is the media, the answer's television.
And so the real point of all this is that despite the fact that people live certain circumstances, they can be convinced that those circumstances are not true.
or are not a majority.
It's how I explain the 80s.
I mean, anybody alive, anybody paying attention, who lived through the 80s as an adult, ought never ever vote liberal again or democratic again, but they do.
Why?
Why?
Well, because ever since the 80s ended, there has been a nonstop effort to mischaracterize them, to revise history, and to basically say that what happened during the 80s didn't happen, and if it did, it was unfair, and all that.
And it just is a it's a point that establishes the persuasive powers of even a media which once had a monopoly, doesn't any longer, still fractured, still has that kind of uh influential ability.
But even with that, they don't win every election.
Even with that, they lose a vast majority of national elections.
Now they've got themselves believing in Wisconsin that they're on the brink of victory here.
And they've uh they've they've got themselves convinced here that they're going to be able to persuade voters that Walker's chump change doesn't have that much support, is not popular, his ideas while maybe working people really don't like that's what they're gounting on.
They've thrown everything they've got in this election.
It'll be fascinating to see.
And what of course they're always underestimating, always do underestimate it, is Republican enthusiasm.
And I think they're prepared or ill-prepared for the shock that's going to hit them tomorrow on Republican turnout.
Now I may or may not get in trouble.
Little story here from Columbus, Ohio.
Lending a helping hand was more satisfying than winning a state championship Saturday for Megan Vogel.
Story is from the Springfield Ohio News Sun.
Circulation a hundred.
I don't know what the circulation is, but it's a small local paper.
Nothing wrong with that.
I'm just trying to tell you as much as I can about the source.
The West Liberty Salem High School Junior, Megan Vogel, was the surprise winner in the Division III girls 1600 meters in the finals of the state track meet at Ohio State's Jesse Owen Stadium.
She broke away from race favorite Tammy Berger of Versailles and Delaney Phelps of Toledo Christian with three hundred meters to go.
She won going away.
It was the first time she had broken the five minute mark in the sixteen hundred meters.
But what Megan Vogel did at the end of the D three thirty two hundred meters, however, got her a standing ovation.
Within twenty feet of the finish line, Arden McMath, a sophomore from Arlington Haskell collapsed in front of Megan Vogel.
Rather than run by her and claim victory, Megan Vogel stopped and helped Arden McGath McMath to her feet and helped her across the finish line.
The crowd came to its feet with the roar growing louder with each step.
Megan Vogel said helping her across the finish line was a lot more satisfying than winning the state championship.
By rule, a runner in track or cross country is automatically disqualified for aiding another runner, even if that runner is wounded or injured.
In this instance, however, track meet management took no action.
McMath was given fourteenth place and Vogel fifteenth place.
Vogel made sure McMath crossed the finish line first because she had been ahead of her when she fell.
Arlington coach Paul Hunter said it was a selfless act.
She could have just gone around Arden, but she stopped and chose to help.
I've never seen that in a state meet.
That is real sportsmanship.
Okay, now you're asking, well, okay, Rush, how are you gonna get in trouble?
Well, I may not.
I may just leave it there and leave it for you to draw your own analysis or conclusion.
But I do want to read one other thing to you.
Totally unrelated as it arrived in my email box on Saturday, but I mean I just now printed it out after seeing the story of the women's track meet, the high school.
The new criterion has been running a year-long series called Future Tense The Lessons of Culture in an Age of Upheaval.
And the last two installments appear in the June issue of the new criterion, which is now on its way to subscribers.
It's available also online at NewCriterion.com.
In the Fourth Revolution, James Pearson asks whether America is on the verge of a new upheaval, a fourth revolution that will reshape U.S. politics for decades to come.
There are signs, he suggests that it is, that quote, we may already be in the early stages of this twenty first century revolution that follows the earlier upheavals of the War of Independence, the Civil War, and the widespread cultural transformation wrought by the New Deal in lessons of culture.
Writes Mr. Pearson, I ponder some of the prerequisites of cultural confidence.
History, Walter Bighott noted in his little masterpiece Physics and Politics.
Physics or history is strewn with the wrecks of nations, which have gained a little progressiveness, a little liberalism at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.
Now I could leave it there.
Leave it for you to connect and think and discuss amongst yourselves.
But then I'm saying do people understand yet what I have said?
Some people might do I need to do a more direct correlation here.
You think it is called for a more direct correlation here of what Mr. Pearson is suggesting we are in the throes of, it's already beginning to happen.
That is the decline of our culture with the decline of hard manliness at the expense of liberalism rising and the women's track meet in Ohio.
Well, I don't know.
See, this is it could be fun just to leave it as it is and let people do the linkage themselves.
Some might not make a link at all, see a link.
Others might.
I'm reminded, ladies and gentlemen, I first heard way back in the late 80s.
That in competitive high school football and junior high school football, that some teams were so good that they were penalized as much as 30 points before the game even started.
In other words, their opponents were given 30 points in order to make it fair.
And then I learned that adults started demanding that no score be kept in competitive sports events, intramural and organized during the summer and during the school year.
And that there was virtue in not winning.
There was virtue in acknowledging that it wasn't fair to be better than anybody else.
There was virtue and almost a hero-like status that attached to people who recognized it might not be fair they were so much better than everybody else, and didn't laud it over them.
And so the measure of determining who was best was eliminated, keeping score.
So that at the end everybody had a pleasurable experience, and nobody ended up with hurt feelings or being humiliated because there were no winners and losers.
Everybody had just gone out at a good time.
The problem with it was, though, the kids were keeping score, even as the adults weren't.
The competitive fires could not be quelled, no matter what the adults and the well-intentioned touchy-feely liberals sought to achieve.
Winning is becoming stigmatized.
Winning is considered to be unfair because somebody loses.
And that means somebody's feelings get hurt.
That means somebody's potentially humiliated, depressed, maybe cries even.
And so we'd have to stop winning.
Thank you.
Everybody just plays.
And it is this that Mr. Pearson's writing about in the New Criterion in which he suggests that we gain a little progressiveness, gain a little liberalism at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness.
And Megan Vogel on Twitter is a hero.
She is a true athlete and even a saint for what she did.
We'll take a break and be back after this.
Don't go away.
Those of you who are on the phones, if you're on hold, stay with me.
We're going to get to you right after the break here at the bottom of the hour.
Not enough time to be fair with another caller right now, but I do want to add on to the unemployment news that we had Thursday and Friday of last week.
If you'll recall, 69,000 jobs were added.
And if you'll recall, the previous two months' numbers were revised, and we learned that we lost 49,000 jobs that were not reported in those two months, March and April.
Now we've learned something very important about the 69,000 jobs that were announced as having been created in the month of May.
Part-time jobs are at an all-time high, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 28 million part-time jobs.
And the fact of the matter is that I don't know the exact number, the vast majority of the 69,000 jobs that were announced that have been created in the month of May were part-time.
According to Zero Hedge, the quality composition of the non-farm payroll report was just abysmal and makes any reported increase in those employed into a sad farce.
The increase in part-time jobs in May compared to April, fifth highest on record, when added with the 508,000 increase in part-time jobs in April.
This is the largest two month increase in part-time jobs in history.
So the 69,000 jobs announced last Thursday or Friday, and remember the world reacted negatively, Europe stock markets negatively.
It's even worse because the bulk of them, the vast majority of them are part-time.
They're not, they're not career oriented type jobs, part-time work.
And of course, no health care benefits, no benefits period, are attached to these jobs.
Sixty-nine hamburger flipper jobs!
Sixty-nine thousand hamburger flipper jobs!
When was the last time we even heard that term?
When was the last time we had in the in the popular reporting of news, day in and day out, hamburger flipper jobs?
When was the last time we heard that?
Had to be during Bush, right?
Talked about job creation during Yeah, but look, you're all part-time now, hamburger flipper.
Well, we are setting records for both unemployment, deficit increase, national debt increase, and now unemployment is being solved.
Well, it's not solved, but but the jobs that are being created are part-time.
They're hamburger flipper jobs.
And that news is being hidden.
It's not being reported in the mainstream.
It's all part of the cover up.
Now, Snerdley just asked me an interesting question.
As you know, Tiger Woods won in Columbus, essentially, Muirfield Village yesterday, Jack Nicholas's tournament, the memorial.
Tiger won.
And Snerdley said is Tiger back?
And I said, Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
There's so many things about what happened yesterday that we don't yet know.
For example, the golf sports media community has been very distressed that Tiger has not been performing well because that means fewer viewers.
Ratings are down.
And frankly, it's less exciting when Tiger is not playing well or not in a tournament.
And a lot of people in the golf community have been hoping, come on, Tiger, come back.
Make the game interesting and bring people back to the game.
Well, Tiger starts out that tournament last Thursday, plays well, plays well on Friday, plays well on Saturday.
How do we know, folks, let's say Rory Sabertini, Sabatini, who was tied for second, how do we know that Sabatini didn't say, you know what, for the good of golf, I'm gonna lose?
For the good of golf, I'm gonna make sure that Tiger wins.
I'm gonna do what I can to make sure that I flub up enough here and there so that I don't do better than Tiger.
And what if the other competitors who were close did the same thing?
If we were to learn, I did just a hypothetical, I just want to throw it out there.
If we were to learn that Rory Sabatini And the rest of the field in the top five purposely did not try to beat Tiger Woods so that Tiger would win and feel better about himself.
It's been a long time.
The game needs Tiger back.
Everybody knows this.
Everybody talks about it.
Everybody admits it.
Everybody wants Tiger to be happy again.
What if we were to learn that all of these competitors who had a chance to win basically chucked it?
Not noticeably.
But nevertheless, purposefully.
Just so that Tiger would win and the game of golf overall would benefit.
And that they would benefit even by losing, because the game's popularity might thus return.
Money might thus return.
Viewership might increase.
Sponsorships might increase.
All it would take is Tiger winning here and there.
Now sturdily says, what are we talking about?
It would never happen.
These guys are too competitive.
They wouldn't lay down on purpose, just let Tiger win.
Uh uh, that's not what we're learning is rewarded.
What?
I just my question is.
Just asking a question.
If we learn that this happened, would Rory Sabatini become a Twitter hero?
Would the media applaud Rory Sabote?
You know what?
You did a great thing.
You purposely lost so Tiger could win, so he would feel better, and so golf would benefit.
You know what?
We're going to give you championship money, even though you didn't, or because you did a and would he become then, if we were to learn that this is what happened, would Rory Sabatini become a hero on Twitter for great sportsmanship and for great thinking, selfless behavior, so selfish to want to win, and yet Rory Sabatini set it aside.
If we were to learn this, I'm not saying it happened, I don't know.
Just asking.
But if we learned that Sabatini was so unselfish that he purposely lost so that Tiger might win for the benefit of Tiger and his self-esteem, and golf in general, would Sabatini be awarded and applauded as a hero on Twitter today.
I'm just asking.
And if you say, if you're shouting at the come on, don't be silly.
What do you thought?
It's insane.
It's not insane.
It happens all over this country.
It happens, we just heard about it in amateur athletics in a high school in Ohio.
It happens.
People purposely lose, purposely penalize themselves so that others might not experience the humiliation of defeat so that others might find out what it's like to experience the joy of victory.
So that everybody can be happy.
It happens.
I'm just wondering if it happened in this case.
Would you applaud it?
Now back to the phones.
Who's next?
Uh Ed in Muskegon, Michigan.
Ed, I'm glad you waited.
Thanks so much for your patience and hello.
Hello, Rush.
Well, thanks for up.
First of all, thank you for interrupting your campaign for the Wisconsin campaign.
I have been a listener since the early 90s when I traveled to State of Michigan as a president of a corrections officers union here in Michigan.
And of course, that makes, I think maybe, although corrections officers here in State of Michigan and myself are very conservative, but the union issue might make me an enemy, but I hope not.
I'm hoping that you would want to become a positive influence on public policy for the whole nation.
Because I've listened to you since the 90s when it was pretty much entertainment back then, but you've really become a real serious Political player.
I thought I was a positive influence on public policy.
Currently.
Yeah, currently.
I thought I was a positive, yes.
Each and every day.
No, I I think, you know, I can see why you would say that, because your ratings well, they went up until you uh had a little problem with attacking that young girl who went to testify for Congress, but um pretty much your ratings have gone up.
She didn't testify in front of Congress.
But let's not get sidetracked.
What is your your thesis that I could be even more influential if I would do what?
If you would be accurate and stick to the facts.
I remember when you said Well, you know, George Bush was president, and he just didn't, you know, the president just doesn't have a vow to turn the economy on and off.
You just can't hold him that accountable.
But you're doing that to Barack Obama.
In fact, when he was elected, stated that you didn't care whether the country gained.
You wanted them to fail, so that's what I'm saying.
No, now see here's the problem.
Here's the you are calling to accuse me of not being factual, and you have just purposely misstated what you know to be something untrue.
I want the country not to be harmed.
That's why I wanted Obama to fail.
And you know what I meant by it.
You're a smart guy, I can tell.
Plus you're a union guy, so you know.
When I said I hope he fails, I meant I don't want the country damaged by the kind of things he believes and wants to do.
And he has not failed in that sense.
He has succeeded in wrecking the United States economy.
He has done it.
Everybody knows it, which is why they're now trying all of a sudden to say presidents don't have any control over it.
That's why I made the point.
2008, this man was the Messiah.
He had magic that no other candidate had ever before in American history had.
He was going to unify the country.
He was going to be post-partisan, post-racial, the world was once again going to love us.
Hell, he was even going to lower the sea levels.
Unprecedented things.
All kinds of power was associated with Barack Obama.
You could talk about George W. Bush.
My my thoughts on this have been totally consistent.
I've always believed it's the people that make the country work.
It's the people that determine an economy.
What government does is put obstacles in their way or remove them.
Bush removed obstacles.
But not all of them.
He wasn't perfect.
Reagan removed obstacles.
Obama has put obstacles in people's way on purpose and by design.
Obama has shrunk the private sector on purpose and by design.
I did not want this to happen.
I hoped he failed at doing it.
But your whole thesis is blown up now.
You accuse me of not being factual, and the first thing you say is wrong.
So thank you.
But I gotta go.
I'm up against it on time.
Back after this.
I can have a positive effect on policy.
What can be more positive in telling the truth?
That is what I do.
You know, it's I find it, I find it uh uh fascinating.
All I was doing was commenting on the news media being selective in their claims about presidential power over the economy.
Well look, the recession, that was Bush's fault.
Obama, even today, the recession was Bush's fault.
Obama's even whining and moaning about what all he inherited.
He even had the temerity to do that in front of Bush at the portrait unveiling.
And yet, a mere day after that, we get David Brooks in the media saying, well, presidents really have no control over the economy.
All I do is point out the lies and the inconsistencies of the Democrat Party and the American left, and that is why I'm a problem.
That's why I represent such a target, because I simply don't swallow the drivel and the bilge and the BS that they put out and that they normally aren't questioned on.
I question it.
Recession was Bush's fault.
Obama has no power over the economy.
The media credits Bill Clinton constantly.
What a great economy that was in the 1990s.
Never the House Republicans who forced spending cuts and welfare reform.
No, no, no.
It's always Clinton did this and Clinton did that.
And by the same token, Republicans say Bush did this and Reagan did that.
No, no question about it.
But I have been entirely consistent.
I, in fact, the phrase, people who make the country work on a trade market.
Because it's mine.
I believe it's the people that make the country work.
And it's you in this audience who are the people who make this country work.
And you either have obstacles put in your way or you have them taken down.
That is what happens.
Tax increases and obstacle.
New regulations on small business, obstacles.
The EPA.
Have you heard about this?
The EPA is conducting surveillance flights over cattle ranchers in Nebraska and other places.
Domestic spying.
Now I remember post-9-11, the American left livid with Bush, warrantless wiretaps.
And what was he doing?
He's simply monitoring phone calls, going from the United States to other countries, intercepting terrorist planning phone calls, and the left went nuts.
Civil rights violations, privacy violation.
Now we've got the EPA with surveillance flights over ranchers in Nebraska and other places in the Middle West.
Trying to deter the what are they?
They're working with the IRS.
It's um what what's a clean water act?
That's what it is.
They're trying to enforce the Clean Water Act by surveillance flights over these guys' ranches.
The regime.
The Obama regime doing this.
And the left, of course, silent on this.
Here's Susan in Atlanta.
Great to have you.
Glad you waited.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Rush, Megadiddos.
Thank you.
It's an honor to talk to you with the President.
I appreciate that.
I really do.
You have a great audience.
I'm very impressed with them.
Thank you.
My son and I uh also love your show.
He's a huge president's uh guru, and we've been following the presidential election very closely as with my daughter.
And we're also very impressed with uh Romney's campaign right now.
Uh we watched a clip of John Sununu on CNN with Soledad O'Brien, and she was trying to tie him uh to the birther group, uh Romney, and uh because Trump uh is a donor, and Sununu really um you know told her this uh he's not a birther.
He's acknowledged, Romney has acknowledged that um Obama was born in the U.S. and that the issues people care about, the economy and jobs, and he really um you know pushed back on that and focused on jobs in the economy.
And I didn't see that bite, but I read about it.
Uh, and I wish I could remember Saduna's quote because it was devastating.
We just put Solidette O'Brien um in her place, and I wish I could remember what he said.
It was some it was something along the lines of, and and you saw it, maybe you could correct me, but it was something along the lines of do you ever have criticism that is not the Democrat Party talking points or the Obama administration talking points or some such thing like that.
Exactly.
Uh, because she went on to another uh topic.
Um she she mentioned the birther, but she made a co she had a quote about um how it it came in with Trump, and he said that was a talking point that came out of the Democratic Party yesterday.
Do you always um go by their talking point?
Yeah, yeah, I remember.
I uh and so what you're saying, you like the feistiness.
You like the rapid response of the Romney team.
Absolutely.
Uh you know, with Romney standing in front of Philindra uh when Romney uh fired back about um uh who was it the other day that uh asked him about is is O'Broack Obama you know a socialist or is he anti-capitalist?
You know, Romney basically said yes because um, you know, of all the regulations.
Um and and it's it's just nice and refreshing to see Romney answered.
That was I remember that was Romney was being asked if he agreed with something I said about about Obama.
And I again uh my my memory is failing me.
Yeah, I said Obama's running the first campaign, anti-capitalist campaign as a president in our history.
First president of my lifetime ever to run against capitalism.
Romney was asked about it, and he agreed with that.
That's what you heard.
So, yeah, there's there's uh uh and he didn't throw Trump overboard.
This is what you're the well, I gotta take a break here.
I'm really up against sit tight, we'll be back.
I'll wrap this up when we get back.
Don't go away.
Yeah, one of the points that I made about Romney uh last week, which is a good one.
So Trump gets on TV, gets uh gets snookered into talking about the birther issue on CNN, and that becomes the whole news narrative the next day.
And then the media said to Romney, you gotta get rid of this guy.
You gotta get rid of Trump.
And by the way, you need to stand at the limbaugh.
You can't let these guys and McCain would have.
McCain would have thrown Trump overboard, would have denounced him just because the Democrats and media were demanding it.
Romney did not.
And that's new.
That is different.
A lot of Republicans in the past, when the media would demand something like that, would easily throw a supporter overboard, but Romney didn't.
Now that having been said, look, I don't not trying to throw cold water on things, but there are a couple of potential problems that I have learned about in recent days.
And since the subject has come up, I'll tell you about them when we get back.
It's about the Romney campaign.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
▲
Export Selection